TYNDP 2013-2022 SJWS #5
Demand & Supply – Infrastructure Projects
TYNDP 2013-2022 – 5th SJWS
20 April 2012
ENTSOG offices -- Brussels
Demand
2
Previous Discussion
TYNDP 2011-2020
> Current report covers:
• Demand scenario coming from TSOs (best estimates)
>
• An Average Daily Demand
• A High Daily Demand (1-in-20 in most countries)
• Annual demand scenarios coming from Eurogas, IEA and Primes
• An Average Daily Demand
Only TSOs and Primes scenarios provide data on a country basis
SJWS #1 Input
> ENTSOG should introduce an additional demand scenario based on MSs’ demand
>
>
>
forecasts
A list of criteria should be defined for consideration by TSOs when forecasting
demand, incl. a check list for national Renewables Action Plans (NREAPs)
Transparency of assumptions and the origin of the forecast may be more
important than a common set of criteria
It is necessary to combine bottom-up and top-down approach
3
Improvement directions
1.
Upgrade the consistency and transparency in the assumptions
and methodologies
2.
Attention to power generation dynamics: link between
electricity and gas systems
3.
Consideration of the EU political goals
4
Transparency: assumptions and methodologies
ENTSOG’s forecast (bottom-up)
• Disaggregation by country
Volumes
• Yearly demand
Capacities
• Peak demand
Top-down scenarios
• EU aggregates
• Yearly demand
time
Entsog’s bottom-up demand scenario/forecast
> The Entsog’s bottom-up scenario keeps the required consistency between TYNDP
>
>
and the national ten-year network development plans.
The peak demand values, calculated under the national standards, - The Design
Case - define the network requirements in terms of transmission capacity
determining the network development needs.
Other peak demand values – Simultaneous and Unsimultaneous peak – will be
estimated under a common methodology, incorporating a top-down approach
into the Entsog’s bottom-up scenario.
5
Transparency: assumptions and methodologies
Entsog’s bottom-up demand scenario
Why the top-down approach is limited to the definition of peak cases
>
>
>
The methodologies followed by each TSO to produce demand forecasts are
very diverse – consequently the same diversity is found in the assumptions
required, not only on the values but also on the parameters defining the
scenario.
GPD and Population – being used in most of the countries – may be useful for
comparison purposes.
Other factors broadly considered in the scenario definition are the industrial
activity and the energy efficiency. The parameters measuring these factors
are very heterogeneous as they are adapted to the specific features of gas
consumers in each country (e.g. the definition of industrial sectors) making
difficult the comparison.
6
Transparency: assumptions and methodologies
Entsog’s bottom-up demand scenario
Why only one single scenario
>
Even when for many of the countries, the demand forecasting is done with
some sensitivity analysis over a reference scenario, the heterogeneity of the
parameters considered in the sensitivity prevent their addition: The bottomup scenario is restricted to the aggregation of the reference scenarios.
>
Generally, in the development of forecasts, TSOs are already taking into
account political decisions having an impact on gas demand. Therefore we
can not differentiate between gas demand scenarios with/without
consideration of EU political goals.
7
Consideration of EU political goals
EU 20/20/20
>
Europe 2020 targets:
>
>
>
>
Overall CO2 emissions reduction: -20% compared to 1990 levels
20% increase in energy efficiency equalling 368 Mtoe reduction of energy
consumption compared with projected levels in 2007.
20% of EU energy consumption to come from renewable resources
The global EU targets are translated into national targets in the National
Reform Programmes and National Renewables Action Plans
8
Consideration of EU political goals
The National Renewables Action Plans
>
>
Focused on the contribution of the renewables to the energy mix, and its
enhancement. The NREAPs are a feeble source of information with
regards to natural gas demand.
Again, the heterogeneity between plans makes difficult the comparison.
Country 1
GDP
Population
Natural gas in
primary energy





Natural gas in
final energy
Natural gas for
power generation
Installed capacity of
gas fired power
stations


Country 2
Country 3
…


Country 27
9
Consideration of EU political goals
Roadmap 2050
>
>
The Communication “Energy Roadmap 2050”, commits the EU to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions to 80-95% below 1990 levels by 2050, being
the basis for developing a long-term European framework together with
all stakeholders.
The roadmap provides several – PRIMES – scenarios (EU27 aggregates):
CURRENT TREND SCENARIOS
1. Reference scenario with 4
sensitivities:
1.Low energy import prices
2.High energy import prices
3.High GDP
4.Low GDP
2. Current policies Initiatives ( Including
actions concerning “Energy
efficiency plan” an “Energy Taxation
Directive”
DECARBONISATION SCENARIOS
1. High Energy Efficiency
2. Diversified supply technologies
3. High renewable energy sources
(RES)
4. Delayed CCS
5. Low Nuclear
10
Consideration of EU political goals
Roadmap 2050
>
>
>
None of the decarbonisation scenarios is defined as a realistic “road” to
be followed. The aim of these 5 decarbonisation scenarios is the
delimitation of the envelope of energy consumption patterns that could
lead to the achievement of the decarbonisation target.
The horizon of the Roadmap 2050 goes far beyond the horizon of TYNDP
2023, while the main divergences between scenarios come after 2025.
From the PRIMES extensive description of scenarios, some parameters
have been compared:
> Gross Inland Energy consumption
> CO2 emissions
> Natural gas gross inland energy
> CO2 Emissions- Power
>
>
>
>
>
consumption
Gross Electricity generation
Fuel Input for thermal electricity
generation
Gas Input for thermal power
generation
Final Energy demand
Gas in final energy demand
>
>
>
>
>
generation
CO2 Emissions – Industry
CO2 Emissions – Residential
Net generation capacity
Thermal power generation
capacity
Gas fired power generation
capacity
11
Consideration of EU political goals
Roadmap 2050
Why the roadmap scenarios cannot be fed and analyzed in the network modeling
>
Lack of geographical disaggregation: demand figures are required at
country/balancing zone level
>
Yearly figures ~ Volumes: The more relevant demand figures defining the
network adequacy are the peak day.
>
The yearly figures cannot be directly translated into daily figures (- x %
yearly volume is not the same – x % of peak day demand). The demand
modulation is directly linked with the characteristics of the gas
consumers, therefore the assumptions considered in the different
scenarios implying changes in the gas demand breakdown will influence
the peak demands.
12
Consideration of EU political goals
Roadmap 2050
>
The direct comparison between the scenarios of the Roadmap 2050, and
the Entsog demand scenario in TYNDP will be possible for:
>
>
>
>
Gas demand for power generation
>
Gas in final energy demand
Gas fired power generation capacity
This comparison will be limited by:
>
>
>
Gas demand in primary energy
The different forecasting horizons
The lack of disaggregation of the RM data
The added value of this comparisons has to be determined.
13
Consideration of EU political goals
Natural gas in Primary Energy
ktoe
ENTSOG 2011-2020 (EU-27)
600,000
Reference
500,000
400,000
300,000
Current Policies
High Energy Efficiency
Diversified Supply technologies
High Renewable energy sources
200,000
Delay CCS
100,000
0
Low Nuclear
Eurogas Baseline
Eurogas Roadmap 2050
14
Consideration of EU political goals
Gas fired power generation capacity
MWe
ENTSOE SO&AF SCENARIO B
300,000
ENTSOE SO&AF SCENARIO
202020
Reference
250,000
200,000
Current Policies
150,000
High Energy Efficiency
100,000
Diversified Supply
technologies
High Renewable energy
sources
Delay CCS
50,000
0
2010
2015
2020
2025
Low Nuclear
15
Consideration of EU political goals
Roadmap 2050
>
Together with the direct comparisons, some analysis of the gas-related
issues can be extracted from RM2050.
MWe
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Gas fired power generation capacity
Current Policies
High Energy Efficiency
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
120%
Reference
Natural gas Input for Electricity generation (ref 2010)
Diversified Supply
technologies
High Renewable energy
sources
Delay CCS
Low Nuclear
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
16
0%
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Consideration of EU political goals
Roadmap 2050
>
Together with the direct comparisons, some analysis of the gas-related
issues can be extracted from RM2050.
Gas fired power generation capacity
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Gas Input in thermal power generation
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
17
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Consideration of EU political goals
180%
160%
Thermal Power from Natural
Gas
140%
120%
Gas Input in the thermal
power generation
100%
Intermittency
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
The increase of installed capacity and the reduction of the yearly power generation from
gas, lead to a clear increase in the intermittency of gas fired power stations, and
consequently on the flexibility required to the associated gas transmission facilities.
18
Supply
19
Previous Discussion
TYNDP 2011-2020 scope
> Supply sources included in TYNDP were:
• Algeria (pipe) & Libya (pipe) from McDermott study for Commission
• LNG (all sources together) from a GLE study
• National Production from TSOs
• Norway and Russia from national Ministries
> Gathered information was potential supply on a yearly basis
Methodology rationales
> For each demand case (Average and High Daily) a supply case has to be defined to
>
>
build a Reference Case
In every resilience test scenario, supply has been kept as close as possible to the
Reference Case while minimizing potential demand curtailment or investment gap
and staying within the supply potential range of each source
Supply mix in Reference Case is then used only to produce a reasonable
scenario but has no influence on gap identification
20
Average daily supply share – Reference Case
SCENARIO A - No New source
Iteration 0
Iteration 1
GWh/d
2011
2015
2020
2020
Demand
1000
1200
1400
1400
Potential
300
250
200
200
Actual share
300
250
200
200
700
950 (+36%)
1200 (+26%)
1200
Potential
600
700
800
800
Actual share
400
543
687
700
Potential
400
450
500
500
Actual share
300
407
513
500
Potential
0
0
0
0
Actual share
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
National Production
Net Demand
Supply A
Supply B
Supply C (hypothetic)
Supply balance
21
Average daily supply share – Reference Case
SCENARIO A - No New source
SCENARIO B - New source
Iteration -1
Iteration 0
Iteration 1
Iteration 2
GWh/d
2020
2020
2020
2020
Demand
1400
1400
1400
1400
Potential
200
200
200
200
Actual share
200
200
200
200
1200 (+26%)
1200
1200
1200
Potential
800
800
800
800
Actual share
687
700
700
646
Potential
500
500
500
500
Actual share
513
500
500
462
Potential
0
0
100
100
Actual share
0
0
100
92
0
0
100
0
National Production
Net Demand
Supply A
Supply B
Supply C (hypothetic)
Supply balance
22
High daily supply share – Reference Case
GWh/d
Max 2008/2009
Average daily share
High Daily Ratio
Supply A
500
400
1.25
Supply B
400
300
1.33
GWh/d
2011
2015
2020
Demand
1400
1700
2000
Potential
350
300
250
Actual share
350
300
250
1050
1400
1750
Average Daily
400
543
700
High Daily share
500
679
875
Average Daily
300
407
500
High Daily share
400
541
665
150
180
210
National
Production
Net Demand
Supply A
Supply B
To be covered by UGS and LNG at same
load factor
23
Supply by import route
Load factor of import routes coming from other supply sources are not
impacted by the new Route 3
24
Previous Discussion
SJWS#1 Input
> The use of 2008 & 2009 figures to initialize supply might have introduced an
>
>
>
>
overestimation of the daily flexibility. Flexibility should remain constant rather than
increase with yearly values.
Nearly all pipe gas imported from outside Europe is delivered under long-term
contracts.
LNG treatment: some established LNG chains are dedicated to some terminals and
can be treated similar to pipeline gas, whereas most of the newer LNG projects
were developed for global market. Peak situations should be primarily be modeled
as a mix of underground gas storages and pipe gas supply
The behavior of LNG supply should reflect the dependency to price signal, high
prices often occurring under peak situation. Such situation may lead to ship
diversion or reloading and impact LNG tank management in order to provide high
flexible supply to the European market. Such features are clearly different than pipe
gas supply.
Maximum flexibility of Algerian, Libyan and Norwegian supplies is nearly reached
25
TYNDP 2011-2020 Feedback
General consideration on supply approach
> Consideration of supply limitation makes scenarios more realistic
> Ministerial sources could be too optimistic
> Non-conventional gas should be considered
> Dialogue with producers should be maintained and enhanced
> Consideration of ramp-up phases
> Focus should be on existing (contracted) supply and ones associated with committed
projects
Supply modelling
> A 10 to 15-year average could be more relevant than 2008 & 2009 when defining
>
>
>
>
supply shares for the Reference Case
Methodology to define Reference Case supply is appropriate
The arrival of a new supply source should reduce the shares of the existing ones
Supply contractual constraints should be factored in the scenarios
More supply scenarios should be investigated
26
Proposed changes/improvements
1- Extensive description of the gas supplies in the previous years
>
>
Introducing the concept of the review in the TYNDP.
Possible topics to be covered:
> Supply patterns: load factors by source and route. Historical maximums.
Analysis of the % of the different sources used as base load, and margins
for flexibility. Analysis of the variations after the introduction of a new
route or source. Imports vs. National Production. Supply portfolio by type
(LNG vs. Pipeline) and country.
> Diversification of supply: EU/zones/countries.
> LNG: analysis of the origins: Even if LNG is considered in the modelling as
a single gas source, a deeper description of the imports should be done,
and a indicator may be defined to measure its benefits increasing the
diversification of supply.
27
Proposed changes/improvements
2- Definition of the reference cases (1 of 3)
>
>
>
Different load factors by route, linked to the historical use of the routes.
Different treatment for LNG?
Limitation of sources :
> Peak cases:
> For each source: maximum historical value – all the routes at the
same moment – simultaneously> New routes from an existing source, 2 options:
> Analysis case by case:
> The limitation may be estimated applying the ratio between
the limitation used in the existing routes and their technical
capacity, to the technical capacity of the new route.
> No limitation could be imposed to a new route beyond it’s
technical capacity
> Other…
28
Proposed changes/improvements
Source 1
R1
R2
R3
TYNDP 2011-2020 – Common route share
Source 1 – Balance: 600 Units
Route 1 – Technical capacity: 300 Units
Route 2 – Technical capacity: 300 Units
Route 3 – Technical capacity: 400 Units
Total technical capacity: 1000 Units: Load-factor: 60%
Route 1 – 180 Units
Route 2 – 180 Units
Route 3 - 240 Units
Historical load-factor of the routes (last 3 years)
Route 1 – 50% - 150 Units
Route 2 – 70% - 210 Units
Route 3 – 40% - 160 Units
Total: 520 Units
Different route share according to the historical data:
Route 1 = 600 * (150/520) = 173 Units
Route 2 = 600 * (210/520) = 242 Units
Route 3 = 600 * (160/520) = 184 Units
29
Proposed changes/improvements
2- Definition of the reference cases (2 of 3)
>
Introduction of a new source in the reference case: The new source – as well
as the existing ones – is reduced proportionally in a second iteration. That
way, we avoid the priorization of new sources.
Iteration 0
GWh/d
Demand
UGS
Potential
National
production
Actual share
Net Demand
Potential Supply
Over/Under supply
Supply A
Supply B
Supply C
(hypothetic)
Potential
Actual share
Potential
Actual share
Potential
Actual share
2011 2015
1000 1200
0
0
300 250
300 250
700 950
1000 1150
300 200
600 700
400 543
400 450
300 407
0
0
0
0
2020
1400
0
200
200
1200
1300
100
800
686
500
514
0
0
Iteation 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3
2020
1400
0
200
200
1200
1300
100
800
700
500
500
0
0
2020
1400
0
200
200
1200
1400
200
800
700
500
500
100
92
2020
1400
0
200
200
1200
1400
200
800
650
500
464
100
86
30
Proposed changes/improvements
2- Definition of the reference cases (3 of 3)
>
Peak supply cases:
> Same methodology followed in TYNDP 2011-2020 with the following
modifications:
> Supply limitation
> LNG treatment: a certain % of the LNG import capacity will be treated
as pipeline gas; the remaining capacity will be last resource source –
as well as the UGS –
> The % of LNG treated as pipeline, will be estimated on the basis of
the historical flows. All the LNG terminals in one country are to be
considered as one route.
> Estimation of the % treated as pipeline: function on the analysis of
the historical flows by route.
31
Proposed changes/improvements
Source 1
R1
Maximum Historical supply from Source1: 13,000 Units – specific date
Route 1: 7,500 Units
Route 2: 5,500 Units
R2
Maximum non-simultaneous supply from Source 1: 14,000 Units
Route 1: 8,000 Units
Route 2: 6,000 Units
Historical yearly supply from Source 1: 3,650,000 Units – Average 10,000 units
Peak supply from source 1:
TYNDP 2011-2020
- Maximum non-simultaneous supply
- Peak factor: Maximum/Average
14,000/10,000 ~ 1,4
- Apply the historical peak factor to
the “estimated” volumes in the
future
- This approach has been said to be to
optimistic as the maximum flexibility
may have been reached.
ALTERNATIVES
- Maximum historical daily values without yearly volumes
considerations:
- Maximum simultaneous supply (13,000)
- Maximum non-simultaneous supply (14,000)
- Volume consideration - Peak factors:
- From the maximum simultaneous supply ~ 1,3
- From the maximum non simultaneous supply ~ 1,4 (*)
(*) Follow the TYNDP 2011-2020 methodology
32
Thank You for Your Attention
ENTSOG -- European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas
Avenue de Cortenbergh 100, B-1000 Brussels
EML:
T:
WWW:
info@entsog.eu
+ 32 2 894 5100
www.entsog.eu
33